What is Nine Dash Line??

The Nine-Dash Line—at various times also referred to as the "10-dash line" and the "11-dash line"—
refers to the undefined, vaguely located, demarcation line used initially by the Republic of China
(1912–1949) and subsequently the governments of the Republic of China (ROC / Taiwan) and
the People's Republic of China (PRC), for their claims of the major part of the South China Sea.[2][3] The
contested area in the South China Sea includes the Paracel Islands,[a] the Spratly Islands,[b][4] and various
other areas including the Pratas Islands, the Macclesfield Bank and the Scarborough Shoal. The claim
encompasses the area of Chinese land reclamation known as the "Great Wall of Sand".[5][6][7][8]
An early map showing a U-shaped eleven-dash line was published in the then-Republic of China on 1
December 1947.[9] Two of the dashes in the Gulf of Tonkin were later removed at the behest of Chinese
Premier Zhou Enlai, reducing the total to nine. [10] Subsequent editions added a dash to the other end of
the line, extending it into the East China Sea.[11]
Despite having made the vague claim public in 1947, China has not (as of 2018) filed a formal and
specifically defined claim to the area within the dashes. [12] China added a tenth-dash line to the east of
Taiwan island in 2013 as a part of its official sovereignty claim to the disputed territories in the South
China Sea.[11][13][14]
On 12 July 2016, an arbitral tribunal constituted under Annex VII to the 1982  United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea ruled that China has no legal basis to claim "historic rights" within its nine-dash
line in a case brought by the Philippines. The tribunal judged that there was no evidence that China had
historically exercised exclusive control over the waters or resources within the Nine-Dash Line. The
ruling was rejected by both Taiwan and China

Territorial Dispute in the South China Sea

The South China Sea disputes involve both island and maritime claims among several sovereign
stateswithin the region, namely Brunei, the People's Republic of China (PRC), Republic of
China (ROC/Taiwan), Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam. An estimated US$3,37 trillion
worth of global tradepasses through the South China Sea annually,[1] which accounts for a third of the
global maritime trade.[2] 80 percent of China´s energy imports and 39,5 percent of China´s total trade
passes through the South China Sea.[1]
The disputes include the islands, reefs, banks, and other features of the South China Sea, including
the Spratly Islands, Paracel Islands, Scarborough Shoal, and various boundaries in the Gulf of Tonkin.
There are further disputes, including the waters near the Indonesian Natuna Islands, which many do not
regard as part of the South China Sea. [3] Claimant states are interested in retaining or acquiring the rights
to fishing stocks, the exploration and potential exploitation of crude oil and natural gas in the seabed of
various parts of the South China Sea, and the strategic control of important shipping lanes.
Since 2013, the People´s Republic of China has resorted to island building in the Spratly Islands and the
Paracel Islands region.[4] These actions have been met with a wide international condemnation, and
since 2015 the United States and other states such as France and the United Kingdom have
conducted freedom of navigation operations (FONOP) in the region.[5] In July 2016, an arbitration
tribunal constituted under Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
ruled against the PRC's maritime claims in Philippines v. China.[6] The tribunal did not rule on the
ownership of the islands or delimit maritime boundaries. [7][8] The People's Republic of China and the
Republic of China (Taiwan) stated that they did not recognize the tribunal and insisted that the matter
should be resolved through bilateral negotiations with other claimants. [9]

Disputes in the South China Sea region

The disputes involve both maritime boundaries and islands. [10] There are several disputes, each of which
involves a different collection of countries:

1. The nine-dash line area claimed by the Republic of China, later the People's Republic of China
(PRC), which covers most of the South China Sea and overlaps with the exclusive economic
zone claims of Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam.
2. Maritime boundary along the Vietnamese coast between the PRC, Taiwan, and Vietnam.
3. Maritime boundary north of Borneo between the PRC, Malaysia, Brunei, Philippines, and
Taiwan.
4. Islands, reefs, banks and shoals in the South China Sea, including the Paracel Islands, the Pratas
Islands, Macclesfield Bank, Scarborough Shoal and the Spratly Islands between the PRC, Taiwan,
and Vietnam, and parts of the area also contested by Malaysia and the Philippines.
5. Maritime boundary in the waters north of the Natuna Islands between the PRC, Indonesia and
Taiwan[11]
6. Maritime boundary off the coast of Palawan and Luzon between the PRC, the Philippines, and
Taiwan.
7. Maritime boundary, land territory, and the islands of Sabah, including Ambalat, between
Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines.
8. Maritime boundary and islands in the Luzon Strait between the PRC, the Philippines, and
Taiwan.

2011 agreement[edit]
On 20 July 2011, the PRC, Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam agreed to a set of preliminary
guidelines which would help resolve the dispute. [which?][32] The agreement was described by the PRC's
assistant foreign minister, Liu Zhenmin, as "an important milestone document for cooperation among
China and ASEAN countries".[32] Some of the early drafts acknowledged aspects such as "marine
environmental protection, scientific research, safety of navigation and communication, search and
rescue and combating transnational crime", although the issue of oil and natural gas drilling remains
unresolved.
Ongoing disputes[edit]

South China Sea claims and agreements .

According to former Philippine President Benigno Aquino III, "China's nine-dash line territorial claim over
the entire South China Sea is against international laws, particularly the United Nations Convention of
the Laws of the Sea (UNCLOS)".[30] Vietnam also rejected the Chinese claim, citing that it is baseless and
against the UNCLOS.[31] In 2010, at a regional conference in Hanoi, United States Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton announced that "The United States has a national interest in freedom of navigation,
open access to Asia's maritime commons, and respect for international law in the South China Sea".
[32]
 The United States has also called for unfettered access to the area that China claims as its own, and
accused Beijing of adopting an increasingly aggressive stance on the high seas. [32]
Parts of China's Nine-Dash Line overlap Indonesia's exclusive economic zone near the Natuna islands.
Indonesia believes China's claim over parts of the Natuna islands has no legal basis. In November 2015,
Indonesia's security chief Luhut Panjaitan said Indonesia could take China before an international court
if Beijing's claim to the majority of the South China Sea and part of Indonesian territory is not resolved
through dialogue.[33] As early as 1958, the Chinese government released a document pertaining to its
territorial limits,[34] stating that China's territorial waters cover twelve nautical miles, and announcing
that this provision applies to "all the territory of People's Republic of China, including the Chinese
mainland and offshore islands, Taiwan and its surrounding islands, the Penghu Islands, the Dongsha
Islands, Xisha Islands, Zhongsha Islands, the Nansha Islands and other islands belonging to China". [35][36]
Some parties have questioned the jurisdiction of the United Nations Convention of the Laws of the
Sea on the dispute, arguing that the convention does not support claims based on sovereignty or title,
and instead raises the right to continue using the waters for traditional purpose. [37][38]

China's map submission to the UN in 2009 heightened the dispute. The first page addresses China's
claim to the "islands in the South China Sea and the adjacent waters", the second page, the Nine-Dash
Map, is not clear as to the meaning of the map [39]

While China has never used the nine-dash line as an inviolable border to its sovereignty [40], this strategy
together with the fact that China's government has never officially explained the meaning of the line has
led many researchers to try to derive the exact meanings of the Nine-Dash Map in the Chinese strategy
in the South China Sea. Some scholars believe that this line cannot be considered as a maritime
boundary line because it violates maritime laws, [citation needed] which states that a national boundary line
must be a stable and defined one. The Nine-Dash Line is not stable because it has been reduced from
eleven to nine dashes in the Gulf of Tonkin as endorsed by Zhou Enlai without any reasons given. It is
also not a defined line because it does not have any specific geographic coordinates and does not tell
how it can be connected if it was a continuous line. [41]
A study of the Office of Ocean and Polar Affairs, US Department of State in 2014 said about a possible
interpretation that "the placement of the dashes within open ocean space would suggest a maritime
boundary or limit".[27]
A 2012 Chinese eighth-grade geography textbook includes a map of China with the Nine-Dash Line and
the text "The southernmost point of our country's territory is Zengmu Ansha ( James Shoal) in
the Nansha Islands." Shan Zhiqiang, the executive chief editor of the Chinese National
Geography magazine, wrote in 2013: "The nine-dashed line ... is now deeply engraved in the hearts and
minds of the Chinese people."[42]
In October 2008, the website WikiLeaks published a cable from the US Embassy in Beijing reporting that
Yin Wenqiang, a senior Chinese government maritime law expert, had "admitted" he was unaware of
the historical basis for the nine dashes. [43]
According to the Kyodo News, in March 2010 PRC officials told US officials that they consider the South
China Sea a "core interest" on par with Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang,[44] but subsequently backed away
from that assertion[45][46][47] In July 2010 the Communist Party-controlled Global Times stated that "China
will never waive its right to protect its core interest with military means" [48] and a Ministry of Defense
spokesman said that "China has indisputable sovereignty of the South Sea and China has sufficient
historical and legal backing" to underpin its claims. [49]
At the Conference on Maritime Study organised by the US-based Center for Strategic and International
Studies (CSIS) in June 2011, Su Hao of the China Foreign Affairs Universityin Beijing delivered a speech
on China's sovereignty and policy in the South China Sea, using history as the main argument. However,
Termsak Chalermpalanupap, Assistant Director for Program Coordination and External Relations of
the ASEAN Secretariat, said: “I don’t think that the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea (UNCLOS) recognizes history as the basis to make sovereignty claims". Peter Dutton of the US  Naval
War College agreed, saying, "The jurisdiction over waters does not have connection to history. It must
observe the UNCLOS." Dutton stressed that using history to explain sovereignty erodes the rules of the
UNCLOS.[50] It is understood that China ratified the UNCLOS in 1996. [51]
Maritime researcher Carlyle Thayer, Emeritus Professor of Politics of the University of New South Wales,
said that Chinese scholars using historical heritage to explain its claim of sovereignty shows the lack of
legal foundation under the international law for the claim. [52] Caitlyn Antrim, Executive Director, Rule of
Law Committee for the Oceans of the USA, commented that "The U-shaped line has no ground under
the international law because [the] historical basis is very weak". She added "I don't understand what
China claims for in that U-shaped line. If they claim sovereignty over islands inside that line, the question
is whether they are able to prove their sovereignty over these islands. If China claimed sovereignty over
these islands 500 years ago and then they did not perform their sovereignty, their claim of sovereignty
becomes very weak. For uninhabited islands, they can only claim territorial seas, not exclusive economic
zones (EEZ) from the islands".[50]

Chinese objection to Indian naval presence and oil exploration

On 22 July 2011, the INS Airavat, an Indian amphibious assault vessel on a friendly visit to Vietnam, was
reportedly contacted 45 nautical miles from the Vietnamese coast in the disputed South China Sea by a
party identifying itself as the PLA Navy and stating that the ship was entering PRC waters. [33][34] A
spokesperson for the Indian Navy explained that as no ship or aircraft was visible, the INS Airavat
proceeded on her onward journey as scheduled. The Indian Navy further clarified that "[t]here was no
confrontation involving the INS Airavat. India supports freedom of navigation in international waters,
including in the South China Sea, and the right of passage in accordance with accepted principles of
international law. These principles should be respected by all." [33]
In September 2011, shortly after the PRC and Vietnam signed an agreement seeking to contain a dispute
over the South China Sea, India's state-run explorer, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) said that
its overseas investment arm, ONGC Videsh Limited, had signed a three-year agreement
with PetroVietnam for developing long-term co-operation in the oil sector, and that it had accepted
Vietnam's offer of exploration in certain specified blocks in the South China Sea. [35] In response, PRC
Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu, without referring to India by name, stated:
"China enjoys indisputable sovereignty over the South China Sea and the island. China's stand is based
on historical facts and international law. China's sovereign rights and positions are formed in the course
of history and this position has been held by Chinese Government for long. On the basis of this China is
ready to engage in peaceful negotiations and friendly consultations to peacefully solve the disputes over
territorial sovereignty and maritime rights so as to positively contribute to peace and tranquillity in the
South China Sea area. We hope that the relevant countries respect China's position and refrain from
taking unilateral action to complicate and expand the issue. We hope they will respect and support
countries in the region to solve the bilateral disputes through bilateral channels. As for oil and gas
exploration activities, our consistent position is that we are opposed to any country engaging in oil and
gas exploration and development activities in waters under China's jurisdiction. We hope the foreign
countries do not get involved in South China Sea dispute." [36][37]
An Indian foreign ministry spokesman responded, "The Chinese had concerns, but we are going by what
the Vietnamese authorities have told us and [we] have conveyed this to the Chinese." [36] The Indo-
Vietnamese deal was also denounced by the Chinese state-run newspaper Global Times.[35][37]

Arbitral tribunal's ruling

Main article:  Philippines v. China

In January 2013, the Philippines formally initiated arbitration proceedings against China's territorial
claim on the "nine-dash line", which it said is unlawful under the United Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea (UNCLOS) convention. China however refused to participate in the arbitration. [53][54] An
arbitration tribunal was constituted under Annex VII of UNCLOS and it was decided in July 2013 that
the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) would function as registry in the proceedings. [55]
On 12 July 2016, the five arbitrators of the tribunal agreed unanimously with the Philippines. They
concluded in the award that there was no evidence that China had historically exercised exclusive
control over the waters or resources, hence there was "no legal basis for China to claim historic rights"
over the Nine-Dash Line. [56][57] The tribunal also judged that China had violated the Philippines' sovereign
rights and caused "severe harm to the coral reef environment". [15][58] China however rejected the ruling,
calling it "ill-founded"; the Chinese President Xi Jinping said that "China's territorial sovereignty and
marine rights in the South China Sea will not be affected by the so-called Philippines South China Sea
ruling in any way", but China was still "committed to resolving disputes" with its neighbours. [15]
[59]
 Taiwan, which currently administers Taiping Island which is the largest of the Spratly Islands, also
rejected the ruling.[60]